Guest TDinDC1112 Report post Posted October 1, 2004 Kerry is polished, professional, and smart. Bush isn't. The same thing happened in 2000 that will probably happen this year. If you're smart and live in cities or more heavily populated areas, you will probably vote for Kerry. If you're a dumb hick who lives in middle America and you don't value intelligence, then you vote for Bush. There's more of those type of people in this country, so Bush wins. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted October 1, 2004 Rudo, I don't care if you have 10 pages of notes. Your analysis is just plain bad. Having LOTS of bad stats to back up your bad analysis does not make your bad analysis less bad. -=Mike Irony again! Kerry was MUCH more fluid in speaking, much more confident, much more poised, he counter attacked and attacked with much more ferocity than Bush, he had much better 'one-liners', he showed more focused points and direction than Bush. I went in not thinking much about either guy. Kerry looked much, much better than Bush here. Meanwhile, you hold Kerry to incredible scrutiny while letting Bush of the hook. Who's analysis is bad here? Kerry had to explain his policies. He didn't. Kerry had to provide a solid alternative. He didn't. If you'd like, I could happily go point-by-point with every idiotic thing he said. -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted October 1, 2004 Kerry is polished, professional, and smart. Bush isn't. The same thing happened in 2000 that will probably happen this year. If you're smart and live in cities or more heavily populated areas, you will probably vote for Kerry. If you're a dumb hick who lives in middle America and you don't value intelligence, then you vote for Bush. There's more of those type of people in this country, so Bush wins. Gee, and the left wonders why people don't tend to like them much. -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jobber of the Week 0 Report post Posted October 1, 2004 BTW: PKB applied to your whine about 'confusing opinion with universal fact'. Try reading next time. And I never stated anything as a fact without evidence except that the right's voice regarding the world community is much more rare internationally. The last part about being humble was presented as an opinion, not as a fact. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
2GOLD 0 Report post Posted October 1, 2004 Kerry is polished, professional, and smart. Bush isn't. The same thing happened in 2000 that will probably happen this year. If you're smart and live in cities or more heavily populated areas, you will probably vote for Kerry. If you're a dumb hick who lives in middle America and you don't value intelligence, then you vote for Bush. There's more of those type of people in this country, so Bush wins. .....wow. That is just.....wow. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted October 1, 2004 Kerry is polished, professional, and smart. Bush isn't. The same thing happened in 2000 that will probably happen this year. If you're smart and live in cities or more heavily populated areas, you will probably vote for Kerry. If you're a dumb hick who lives in middle America and you don't value intelligence, then you vote for Bush. There's more of those type of people in this country, so Bush wins. .....wow. That is just.....wow. He should really stick to the TNA folder. -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sass 0 Report post Posted October 1, 2004 The debate pretty much went as I expected in that it left me generally unimpressed with how both just reiterated their talking points ad nauseum with no real substance behind them. Kerry needed to score a knockedthefuckout win tonight but he didn't do that. I doubt a lot of people changed their minds on who they'll vote for after tonight's debate. Side-tangent: I was totally frustrated with how both guys skirted around the issue of *dealing* with Kim and N.Korea but I understand, and hopefully others will as well, why they did not add any substance or detail to the issue. Kim is crazy enough to hit California with one of his smart missles since he watches *every* US political talk show and was more than likely watching tonight's debate to see if anything would be said about him. He also likes Everybody Loves Raymond so his taste in TV definitely shows the guy has a few screws loose. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Loss Report post Posted October 1, 2004 Kerry did look better than Bush did tonight. He stayed competitive with Bush on Bush's strongest issues. The other two debates should be more relaxed. I'm anxious to see them debate domestic issues. Kerry still hasn't done what he needs to do to close the gap between himself and Bush, but he appears to be moving in the right direction. The problem with that is that it's happening far too late in the campaign. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jobber of the Week 0 Report post Posted October 1, 2004 He should really stick to the TNA folder. -=Mike This is from the guy who operates on campaign advertising as though it's fully truthful. ("That book wuz about yakuza, rite every1?!?!?!") Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RavishingRickRudo 0 Report post Posted October 1, 2004 I think Kerry was way more aggressive than Gore was in 2000. Kerry had to explain his policies. He didn't. Kerry had to provide a solid alternative. He didn't. FOR YOU and basically every person already pro-Bush. Kerry may not have blown you and whatever points you have very conveniently and very accessibly with you at the moment and with plenty of time to look over (aka a non-debate format) but he blew BUSH out of the water. Which is what I said. You have continually ignored Bushes poor performance since I have been in this thread, aka, the other half of the debate, where you have not only given Kerry double standards, but we're getting up into the Quadriple standards territory. If you'd like, I could happily go point-by-point with every idiotic thing he said. -=Mike The point you're missing here, Mike, is that Bush didn't and couldn't. Kerry blew him out of the water. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sass 0 Report post Posted October 1, 2004 The other two debates should be more relaxed. I'm anxious to see them debate domestic issues. I see this either making or breaking either guy. This will be the debate everyone will watch and read about. The talk about Iraq got nowhere. I also would have liked to have seen Kerry explain, just a little teaser anyways, why he can help Russia with their nukes in 4 years. Maybe I need to read his book. Has anyone here read the book Kerry said he wrote about the nuke situation? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest PlatinumBoy Report post Posted October 1, 2004 Bush is for freedom and workers and Kerry is for taxes. The same thing happened in 2000 that will probably happen this year. If you're smart and live in cities or more heavily populated areas, you will probably vote for Bush. If you're a dumb minority who lives in the ghetto and you don't value intelligence, then you vote for Kerry. There's more of those type of people in this country, so Kerry wins. The left and right has ignorant and smart people. Don't play the "One side is stupid" card. To flip what you said to show how easy it can be done: Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0 Report post Posted October 1, 2004 Kerry did look better than Bush did tonight. He stayed competitive with Bush on Bush's strongest issues. The other two debates should be more relaxed. I'm anxious to see them debate domestic issues. Kerry still hasn't done what he needs to do to close the gap between himself and Bush, but he appears to be moving in the right direction. The problem with that is that it's happening far too late in the campaign. Not really. The election is just getting started for most people. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GreatWhiteNope 0 Report post Posted October 1, 2004 Kerry is polished, professional, and smart. Bush isn't. The same thing happened in 2000 that will probably happen this year. If you're smart and live in cities or more heavily populated areas, you will probably vote for Kerry. If you're a dumb hick who lives in middle America and you don't value intelligence, then you vote for Bush. There's more of those type of people in this country, so Bush wins. Gee, and the left wonders why people don't tend to like them much. -=Mike I was part of the liberal bandwagon up until a few weeks ago. Then I realized Kerry hasn't proven anything to me as to why he should be president. You're not voting for John Kerry - you're voting for the Democrats' answer to Bush. And although he's the most qualified man to fill that role, he hasn't explained how he would perform better than Bush - other than saying he would have done things Bush did in the past better - which is irrelevent. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted October 1, 2004 He should really stick to the TNA folder. -=Mike This is from the guy who operates on campaign advertising as though it's fully truthful. ("That book wuz about yakuza, rite every1?!?!?!") Don't you have a point to not make elsewhere? FOR YOU and basically every person already pro-Bush. Kerry may not have blown you and whatever points you have very conveniently and very accessibly with plenty of time to look over (aka a non-debate format) but he blew BUSH out of the water. Fine, what will he do about Iraq? How will he get more allies, since they've already said they won't assist? How will he convince them to do so for a war he didn't agree with? How will he get more allies when he ignores or insults our current allies? How will he double the size of our special ops? Come on, answers. And if his vote for the war was only to authorize it, why did he refuse to make a similar vote for the first Gulf War? Why does he assume MORE sanctions will work to deal with Iraq when 17 of them hadn't done the job? Why does he oppose a MULTILATERAL solution to the N. Korea problem? How can one have multilateral AND bilateral talks with them and not have one of them completely fall apart? Why did he criticize Bush about Kyoto when he voted against it himself? Why did he say Bush took troops away from Tommy Franks when Tommy Franks says that it is not the case? If the troops lack body armor (well, in the swing states, apparently, since they're the only ones he mentioned), why did he vote against the extra money? What is the "global test" for pre-emptive action? How can he possibly bring the troops home in 6 months? How will Kerry secure all nuclear materials within 4 years? Why would Kerry give an insanely oil-rich country nuclear materials for "energy"? In what alternate universe was Clinton's N. Korea policy working? Why should we be multilateral considering how well the world has handled problems in Rwanda in the past and Sudan now? I could continue, if you'd like. You have continually ignored Bushes poor performance since I have been in this thread, aka, the other half of the debate, where you have not only given Kerry double standards, but we're getting up into the Quadriple standards territory. Like it or not, Bush doesn't have to explain himself. He can run on a record. Kerry has to --- and as I showed you here, he didn't BEGIN to do so. The point you're missing here, Mike, is that Bush didn't and couldn't. Kerry blew him out of the water. Bush nailed him on several things, not least of which was his insulting of our allies (Poland doesn't count as a country or something? The coalition of the bribed is ugly, John. The Allawi comments were classless by Kerry). Like it or not, neither man dominated here. Neither man did poorly here. -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cabbageboy 0 Report post Posted October 1, 2004 Bush got owned tonight. I mean, as bizarre as some of the above statements about living in big cities and dumb hicks was, the main point there was clear. Bush was inept tonight, he stuttered, stammered, even mixed up Bin Laden and Saddam at one point. I'll also say that Kerry owns Gore in terms of debating. Gore was much too passive in 2000 and it hurt him. Right wing people like Rush can try and spin doctor this all they want, but Kerry clearly won this debate tonight on Bush's STRONGEST issue. National security, Iraq, and terrorism were Bush's strengths, this debate in theory should have been right in his wheelhouse. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CheesalaIsGood 0 Report post Posted October 1, 2004 Did Bush manage to keep Kerry from gaining any ground? Kerry probably didn't get as much as he expected as much as Bush lost more ground than he wanted. Most of the coverage has hit the nail on the head about how this debate went. Bush will likey never insire me, but tonight neither did Kerry, which is what his main problem is. Winning over lefties like myself. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
teke184 0 Report post Posted October 1, 2004 Bush got owned tonight. I mean, as bizarre as some of the above statements about living in big cities and dumb hicks was, the main point there was clear. Bush was inept tonight, he stuttered, stammered, even mixed up Bin Laden and Saddam at one point. I'll also say that Kerry owns Gore in terms of debating. Gore was much too passive in 2000 and it hurt him. Right wing people like Rush can try and spin doctor this all they want, but Kerry clearly won this debate tonight on Bush's STRONGEST issue. National security, Iraq, and terrorism were Bush's strengths, this debate in theory should have been right in his wheelhouse. Kerry was talking about "Saddam Bin Laden" at some point, too, so Bush wasn't the only one doing those things. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CheesalaIsGood 0 Report post Posted October 1, 2004 Staying tight "lyrically" IS important, but forgivable considering no matter how prepared you are its all still live. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NoCalMike 0 Report post Posted October 1, 2004 The Debate was decent, and I think Kerry did a good enough job to make it another close presidential race. I think Kerry was clearly the more comfortable of the two, and Bush seemed very nervous at times. His "waiting to respond" facial expressions were priceless, but that really has nothing to do with who you should vote for, however you just know it will with the general public, unfortunately. Kerry seemed overall better coached for the debate guidelines, as Bush was often just responding whenever he felt like it, trying to dictate to the moderator how the rules were going to work. Neither delivered a knockout blow, which should be more dissapointing for Bush, as a more convincing debate presentation could have set Kerry way back. So is there going to be a certain theme to the next debate, like about different issues? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RavishingRickRudo 0 Report post Posted October 1, 2004 This is a riot! Mike, Bush did poorly. He looked LOST at so many points during the debate (I've got at least 6) and almost broke down at one point when trying to explain his exit strategy of Iraq. Kerry didn't give a point-by-point assessment of how he was going to do it, but he at least appeared to have a focused, directed approach to handling the situation. Bush did not and he's the fucking president. All of your points are meaningless Mike, do you want to know why? BECAUSE BUSH DIDN'T MAKE THEM. This is the concept of a debate. It was Bush vs. Kerry, not Kerry vs. Mike, and certainly not Kerry vs. Mike with-plenty-of-time-to-come-up-with-answers-and-counter-points-and-explain-them. In this context. In this debate. Kerry blew Bush out of the water. Whatever result that has on the election is for time to decide, but as of right now, he looked good and Bush looked bad. Get this around your head, thinking about it, maybe sleep on it, and then come back and chat. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JoeDirt 0 Report post Posted October 1, 2004 Will a channel like C-SPAN or anyone show a replay of this debate? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Styles 0 Report post Posted October 1, 2004 My brief thoughts are that it was a tie. Neither guy really ran away with it like they could of. Bush's strengths were that he seemed less memorized and more from the heart than Kerry, and did a good job reiterating his positions and avoided some really loaded questions His weaknesses were his style of answering made him seem unsure or unprepared, in the pauses and stuttering. His closing statement was excellent though. Kerry's strengths were that he looked very confident, he spoke without the pauses and akwardness of Bush and kept Bush on the defensive with some direct shots. His weakness was all style and no substance. He was quick to criticize Bush, but never really explained his own plans for things. What he did explain was either unrealistic and just plain wrong. Bush didn't lose any ground from this debate since he basically stayed the course. Kerry probably was helped, because his campaign was suffering and a strong showing should help rally his base, making this thing a lot closer than it was before. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JoeDirt 0 Report post Posted October 1, 2004 My brief thoughts are that it was a tie. Neither guy really ran away with it like they could of. Bush's strengths were that he seemed less memorized and more from the heart than Kerry, and did a good job reiterating his positions and avoided some really loaded questions His weaknesses were his style of answering made him seem unsure or unprepared, in the pauses and stuttering. His closing statement was excellent though. Kerry's strengths were that he looked very confident, he spoke without the pauses and akwardness of Bush and kept Bush on the defensive with some direct shots. His weakness was all style and no substance. He was quick to criticize Bush, but never really explained his own plans for things. What he did explain was either unrealistic and just plain wrong. Bush didn't lose any ground from this debate since he basically stayed the course. Kerry probably was helped, because his campaign was suffering and a strong showing should help rally his base, making this thing a lot closer than it was before. I think that's a pretty fair assessment. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Styles 0 Report post Posted October 1, 2004 Will a channel like C-SPAN or anyone show a replay of this debate? http://www.foxnews.com/ has a video of the debate and a transcript avaliable for free. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cbacon 0 Report post Posted October 1, 2004 Some notable points from the debate that i haven't seen mentioned yet: 1. Bush choosing not to address the fact the US is instituting a nuclear weapons program. 2. Both candidates failed to mention the thousands of Iraqi and Afghani citizens that lost their lives. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sass 0 Report post Posted October 1, 2004 My brief thoughts are that it was a tie. Neither guy really ran away with it like they could of. Bush's strengths were that he seemed less memorized and more from the heart than Kerry, and did a good job reiterating his positions and avoided some really loaded questions His weaknesses were his style of answering made him seem unsure or unprepared, in the pauses and stuttering. His closing statement was excellent though. Kerry's strengths were that he looked very confident, he spoke without the pauses and akwardness of Bush and kept Bush on the defensive with some direct shots. His weakness was all style and no substance. He was quick to criticize Bush, but never really explained his own plans for things. What he did explain was either unrealistic and just plain wrong. Bush didn't lose any ground from this debate since he basically stayed the course. Kerry probably was helped, because his campaign was suffering and a strong showing should help rally his base, making this thing a lot closer than it was before. This is like spot on about how I felt about each guy's showing tonight. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Styles 0 Report post Posted October 1, 2004 Interesting point I noticed was Kerry mentioning the possibility of a draft because of the stretched troops, and Bush responsing by slowly and clearly saying "all volunteer army". Kerry should really stop with such an unsubstantiated scare tactic. Kerry continuing to talk about how consistent he is was absolutely ridiculous, especially when Bush responded with exact Kerry quotes with dates that contradict himself. After Kerry pushed the whole more allies helping in Iraq issue, I thought Bush did a good job pointing out how disengenuous it was to call the war the wrong war and a diversion, and then expect more countries to help on that premise, and furthermore insulting our current allies like Australia and Allawi. Anyway it was interesting also that Bush made a point that Iraq could have been a threat to Israel, and then later on Kerry just slipped in "Israel" in some answer as if to say "me too". You know, its VERY interesting, that while watching the debate, I was focused on Bush's mannerisms and vocalics, which I felt brought him down, and made it a tie, yet after, when I think back about the CONTENT of the message I can remember a lot of Bush's good responses, but honestly Kerry's performance was completely unmemorable. I don't remember any points where I felt he really made his case. It will be interesting to see if Americans pay more attention to style or substance...unfortunately we know what the answer to that has been in the past. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
teke184 0 Report post Posted October 1, 2004 I think that the information revolution may skew the results more toward Bush's election in the coming weeks if people review the transcripts and not the actual video of the debate... That being said, the amount of people who'll actually seek out and read the transcripts is pretty low and probably limited to people predisposed to a certain candidate already. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Styles 0 Report post Posted October 1, 2004 Another solid Bush quote was when Kerry tried to nail him on some of his social positions (which was out of line since this isn't the debate for that) and Bush answered that one thing he won't do is waiver from his core convictions and doesn't wilt under pressure. And then Kerry responding "Ive never wilted" which just sounded odd... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
